Case No. IPR2015-00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SERVICENOW, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015—O0523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... .. 1
`
`.............. ..3
`THE INVENTION OF THE ’229 PATENT .............................
`OVERVIEW OF THE CITED PRIOR ART REFERENCES ............. ..11
`
`III.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Jones ..............................................
`
`.................................................. ..11
`
`Fox ..................................................................................................... .. 14
`
`Forta ................................................................................................... .. 16
`
`D. Williams ............................................................................................ ..16
`
`IV.
`
`UNDER THE BOARD’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS, ALL THE
`
`CHALLENGED ’229 PATENT CLAIMS ARE NON-OBVIOUS
`
`BECAUSE CLAIM LIMITATIONS ARE NOT TAUGHT BY
`
`THE PRIOR ART ...................................................................................... .. 17
`
`A.
`
`The cited prior art does not disclose the “category of
`information stored in said information repository” limitation
`required by each challenged claim. ................................................... .. 18
`
`1.
`
`All challenged claims require that a given derived
`container corresponds with “a category of information
`stored in said information repository.” ................................... .. 18
`
`2.
`
`Jones and Fox do not disclose a derived container that
`
`corresponds with “a given category of information stored
`in said information repository.” .............................................. ..2l
`
`_
`
`B.
`
`Jones and Fox do not disclose that “contents” of “derived
`
`containers” be “information extracted from said information
`
`repository” as required by claims 9-10 and 19-20. ........................... ..25
`
`1.
`
`Claims 9-10 and 19-20 require that “contents” of
`“derived containers” be “information extracted from said
`
`information repository.” .......................................................... ..26
`
`2.
`
`Jones and Fox do not disclose “contents” of “derived
`
`containers” to be “information extracted from said
`
`information repository.” ..... ., ................................................... ..28
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR20l5-00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS 15 AND 17 ARE NON-OBVIOUS
`BECAUSE A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`WOULD NOT COMBINE JONES WITH FORTA .............................. ..38
`
`VI.
`
`UNDER THE PROPER CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS, ALL THE
`CHALLENGED ’229 PATENT CLAIMS ARE NON-OBVIOUS ....... ..44
`
`A.
`
`The claim term “derived container” should be construed as “a
`
`data structure capable of executing a query based on an attribute
`from one or more corresponding container definition nodes” (all
`challenged claims). ............................................................................ ..44
`
`B.
`
`None of the cited references alone or in combination discloses
`
`or suggests a “derived container” (all claims) ................................... ..53
`
`VII.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ ..55
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015—00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................ ..17
`
`Global Tel *Link Corp. v. Securus Techs, Inc.,
`1PR2014—00785, Paper 41 (P.T.A.B. October 7, 2015) .................................... ..42
`
`Honeywell Intern. Inc, v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp,
`488 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... ..45
`
`Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino,
`738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................ ..42
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2012—00026, 2012 WL 10703131 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21,
`2012) ................................................................................................................. .. 17
`
`MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`780 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ ..41
`
`St. Jude Mea’., Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc.,
`729 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................ ..17
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... ..1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ............................................................................................. ..1, 17
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ............................................................................................ ..44
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`US. Patent No. 6,321,229 (the “’229 patent”) is directed to a novel system
`
`that uses specialized data structures to afford users flexibility in accessing
`
`information repositories such as databases. Patent Owner Hewlett—Packard
`
`Company (“HP”) respectfully submits that the challenged claims of the ’229 patent
`
`are patentable over the cited prior art.
`
`The Board instituted review on the three grounds in the Petition: (1) that
`
`independent claims 810 and 13 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,199,098 to Jones (“Jones”) (Ex. 1003) in view of David Fox et 211.,
`
`Web Publisher ’s Construction Kit with HTML 3.2 (1996) (“Fox”) (Ex. 1004); (2)
`
`that claims 18—20 are obvious over Jones in view of Fox and U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,151,630 to Williams (“Williams”) (Ex. 1006); and (3) that claims 15 and 17 are
`
`obvious over Jones in view of Fox and Forta, The Cold Fusion Web Database
`
`Construction Kit (1997) (“Forta”) (Ex. 1005). The Petitioner has not met its
`
`burden of establishing unpatentability of the challenged claims by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence (see 35 U.S.C. § 3 l6(e)) for at least three reasons.
`
`First, under the Board’s preliminary claim constructions, the Petitioner has
`
`not shown that the cited prior art meets at least two claim limitations. First, the
`
`Jones and Fox references do not disclose the “category of information” limitation
`
`of independent claims 8, 17, and 18. Instead of disclosing a “category of O
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR20l5—00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`information,” the Jones and Fox references disclose a tag or bookmark (ie, the
`
`NAME attribute) for a hypertext URL, which merely identifies a position within a
`
`document. Second, dependent claims 9-10 and l9—20 require that “contents” of
`
`“derived containers” be “information extracted from said information repository.”
`
`But the tags/bookmarks of Jones and Fox are not “extracted” from an information
`
`repository, but are instead hard-coded in the structure definition file itself. These
`
`limitations are not disclosed in the cited prior art, and Petitioner therefore has
`
`failed to meet its burden of proving unpatentability.
`
`Second, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Jones with
`
`Forta to render obvious claims 15 and 17. Petitioner relies upon Jones for the
`
`majority of the limitations of these claims, while relying on Forta for the claimed
`
`“selection criteria attribute.” But Jones and Forta teach different ways of
`
`dynamically generating HTML code, and there is no reason why a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would combine these disparate technologies to form the
`
`claimed combination.
`
`Third, under the proper construction of the term “derived container,” the
`
`challenged claims are patentable. HP requests reconsideration of the construction
`
`of the term “derived container” because the preliminary construction does not
`
`represent the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term in view of the intrinsic
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR20l5-00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`record. Under the proper construction of “derived container,” the challenged
`
`claims are patentable.
`
`In this response, HP addresses the cited prior art in detail and why it is
`
`different from the claimed invention of the ’229 patent. In doing so, HP provides a
`
`detailed technical analysis in the accompanying declaration of Paul Onnen (Ex.
`
`2003), an expert with almost thirty years of experience in software design and
`
`databases. In addition, HP cites or quotes many admissions from the deposition of
`
`Petitioner’s own expert, Mr. David Klausner, to corroborate the arguments set
`
`forth in this response}
`
`II.
`
`THE INVENTION OF THE ’229 PATENT
`
`The ’229 patent is directed to an apparatus and method that uses specialized
`
`data structures that enable data in information repositories to be efficiently and
`
`easily accessed in different ways and in different combinations by different users.
`
`’229 patent (Ex. 1001) at Abstract, 2:40~49. Information repositories (such as
`
`databases) contain information that can be useful for many different purposes and
`
`1 HP’s expert Mr. Onnen sets forth his position on a person of ordinary skill in his
`
`declaration, and he states that his opinions do not change if the definition of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art set forth by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Klausner,
`
`applies. Onnen Decl. (Ex. 2003) W 24-27; Klausner Decl. (Ex. 1002) at ll 10.
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015—0O523
`
`US. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`end—users. For example, a database containing information about jobs in an
`
`organization might be useful to human resources personnel, job-seekers, and
`
`employees, all of whom need to access different information in the database. But
`
`databases also can become very large, and accessing a large database to retrieve
`
`information in a timely manner is a difficult task. Id. at 1:39-44.
`
`Prior art solutions required either (1) writing a custom program for every
`
`application that needed to access the data from the information repository, or (2)
`
`allowing an end—user to search the database, which would require the user to
`
`understand the query language used to access the database, how to construct proper
`
`queries using that language, and how the data is organized in the database. Id. at
`
`1:57-2:49, 8:41-45. These prior art approaches had several drawbacks, including
`
`requiring a great deal of expertise, time and cost, and also were inefficient. Id.;
`
`Onnen Decl. (Ex. 2003) ‘H 37~39. For example, writing a custom program for
`
`every possible use of the data in a database would require writing countless
`
`different programs, which would only increase as the databases grow in
`
`complexity. Moreover, new databases would require new sets of programs.
`
`Onnen Decl. (Ex. 2003) ‘ll 38. Likewise, requiring end-users to write their own
`
`database queries would be highly inefficient because database queries are difficult
`
`to write properly and different users would duplicate efforts in creating their own
`
`versions of the same queries. Id. at ‘ll 39.
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`The ’229 patent solves these problems by providing an innovative system for
`
`accessing large information repositories using specialized data structures called
`
`“container definition nodes” and “derived containers.” ’229 patent (Ex. 1001) at
`
`Abstract. In a preferred embodiment, a container definition node contains
`
`attributes, including a label attribute and a selection criteria attribute, which
`
`contains part of the query used to specify the data records to be selected from the
`
`database. See, e.g., id. at 8:59-65, 10:24-38, 11:18-19, Figs. 9, 11, 12. An
`
`information model is created by creating different container definition nodes with
`
`different selection criteria and arranging them in a hierarchy. Id. at 5: 12-16, 7:60-
`
`63, 10:19-38, 11:18-19, Figs. 9-12. A derived container, in turn, corresponds to a
`
`container definition node and extracts and displays the information represented by
`
`the corresponding container definition node by executing a query. Id. at 2:63-67,
`
`4:7-10, 6:61-67, 12:52-59.
`
`A user exploring the data in the information repository represented by the
`
`hierarchy can select a derived container, and upon selection, the system will
`
`display the contents of the derived container. Id. at 4:18-22. If the selected
`
`derived container is not at a leaf node, the selected derived container’s contents can
`
`include child derived containers, which are displayed. Id. at 12:59-65. This is
`
`shown in steps 1410, 1412, and 1414 ofFigure 14. Id. at 12:44-65, Fig. 14.
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015—00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`When the user selects a derived container at a leaf node, the system will
`
`extract and display the results of the executed query constructed from the selection
`
`criteria contained in the derived container’s corresponding container definition
`
`node. Id. at 3:8—11, 4:18-22, 12:52-59, 12:65-13:14, Fig. 14 (steps 1410, 1418, and
`
`1420). This process ultimately allows an end user to View a specific subset of the
`
`database data and to use different hierarchies in order to see the data in different
`
`ways. Id. at Figs. 11, 12; Onnen Decl. (Ex. 2003) W 41-43.
`
`For example, Figure 7 of the ’229 patent shows sample records of a database
`
`ofjobs. ’229 patent (Ex. 1001) at 3:39-40.
`\,,..a.............W,~..«W~.......
`.w,,.......,........,.M..m...w.wW......W...,
`o/«V/lN\>l/)/A:§1 W, ,,
`\~>\\-
`.,W.,,,.,..,,M,,.,,,,
`
`».»»»».»e».a«-..»....w..»,M.»..§
`
`gal iriiiigw
`
`com?
`
`field: ;';ch:Fmf
`
`
`
`
`
`field:fir;.*c¥e
`5
`W
`
`field: fsgaviaiiaiale
`F A
`F
`W
`W:
`
`fiasd: Jab; fiat; Jab
`wgflggwmwmg §§A§R$R
`v<fi_,,.,,,,,,,, srsssmsr
`srrwsr
`,..,,..,, “am mg“
`ggggaawaea cow
`vvosfigfigmgfi
`com?
`
`
`
`70»:
`ms
`
`
`
`=
`.
`
`MW
`M g
`
`Kg: __
`
`7°“
`
`_
`
`..
`
`a:,,E:f<:‘rRic:mN
`
`tnaufi
`
`.
`
`
`
`no
`
`wrumssa
`
`,
`
` rem ms
`rsvmfigia,
`,
`
`
`
`L
`
`Id. at Fig. 7. Figure 12, in turn, depicts container definition nodes 1200, 1202,
`
`1204, 1206, and 1208 of an information model for the Technical / Professional jobs
`
`in the database shown in Figure 7.
`
`

`
`Case No. 1PR2015—00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`$238
`
`i T <achneoa1iF’::)te2ssionas
`
`
`TacI2r$"mIs~TRUE
`Na Tab
`13%
`
`
`
`‘£234
`
` .
`
`..
`
`
`
`
`Caicnpuiaisv
`skiftswcomp
`Tab 1
`
`
`
`., i{$
`skiiIs=E§ec
`Tab 3
`i202 13%
`
`121%
`
`
`
`
`1288 1.
`Tab 2
`
`
`
`P:o;;;m;ninQ
`;<at.w«Program
`
`‘:22?
`
`FIG. 12
`
`Id. at Fig. 12. Figure 17 depicts the same information model of Figure 12 after the
`
`generation of three derived containers 1604, 1700, and 1704.
`
`’229 patent (Ex.
`
`1001) at 3:60~62, 10:57-62, 1121-7, Figs. 7, 12, 17.
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`, . « m M « . . . _ . M W . now‘
`
`iYechn§eai1§*m§ass§a3na3
`
`I
`
`1; we»:
`
`Tee:'2x§*’:*r>f«”Ff?U£§
`§
`,
`; so Tat;
`t:,::::::::‘ ::f::::"::‘.
`sass
`
`2:?
`W :1
`F
`F
`
`
`S 64
`[B 1 W
`Tetchniczai/tlmfessianai
`y—»»«--~«<~««~~—~1
`. » « » . « » n ».~»-«M,.
`Tev,:h;¥’mf~'=’TR§JE
`ififeesmnsas
`:
`ziionwgnuiacrs
`1
`. N9 rag,
`Q
`
`K qtacvwmmnuai mo .
`. {rscrwmM‘s‘<u§} AM}
`3
`0
`*0?“
`A
`_
`;
`rgmrismcesvsn;
`;
`g
`:
`{s§<ii?s7sELE£C}
`1
`iZ‘:;‘l“l,“E'}:”iI“:‘;TIEZT":"ZL'1'.T’
`’
`t':{§i’:E::::: ,.:::':':i
`
`~
`'Cc~m;:au:am
`Eimirunica
`F
`
`
`
`siriIIs=<=’ELEC
`W6
`s}a':‘iss:(I0!.»1F>
`
`Tat: 1 W .
` Tab 2
`
`
`
`
`1733
`
`jm‘:v"w*REPA¥R
`my 2
`
`1%
`
`pm
`
`Frugramniiyig
`;’ob«»PRO€3RAbst
`Tab 3
`
`Container definition node 1200 of Figures 12 and 17 contains the selection
`
`criteria “Tech/Prof=TRUE.” Derived container 1604 of Figure 17 corresponds to
`
`container definition node 1200 and displays the label “Technical/Professional.”
`
`When the user selects derived container 1604, derived containers 1700
`
`(Computers) and 1704 (Electronics) of Figure 12 are generated and displayed. Id.
`
`at 13260-1427. Derived container 11704 corresponds to container definition node
`
`1204, which is a child container definition node of container definition node 1200.
`
`Container definition node 1204 of Figures 12 and 17 contains the selection criteria
`
`“skills=ELEC.” Id. at Fig. 17.
`
`If the user then selects derived container 1704 (a leaf node), the system
`
`dynamically builds a query that includes the selection criteria from container
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR20l5-00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`definition nodes 1204 and 1200. In other words, a query using the selection
`
`criteria {{Tech/Prof=TRUE} AND {skills=ELEC}} is dynamically built and
`
`executed to extract and display records matching this criteria from the database.
`
`Id. at 14:43-63; Onnen Decl. (Ex.2003)1l 48. Because onlyjob 711 in Figure 7
`
`meets both criteria, it is the only record that will be displayed when the user selects
`
`derived container 1704. Id. at Fig. 7; Onnen Decl. (Ex.2003)1l 48. Similarly, if
`
`the user selects derived container 1700, a query using the selection criteria from
`
`container definition nodes 1200 and 1202 is dynamically built
`
`{{Tech/Prof=TRUE} and {skills=COMP}} and executed to extract and display
`
`records matching this criteria from the database.
`
`’229 patent (Ex. 1001) at 14:43-
`
`63. Such a query will return jobs 700, 704, 705, and 706, which match both
`
`selection criteria. Id. at Fig. 7; Onnen Decl. (Ex.2003)1l 49.
`
`As set forth above, each derived container in the hierarchy of derived
`
`containers corresponds to at least one container definition node. In addition, and
`
`critically, each derived container corresponds to a category of information in the
`
`information repository.
`
`’229 patent (Ex. 1001) at 6:63—67. The category of
`
`information is a field from the database from which the derived container’s
`
`selection criteria is based. Id. at 6:67—7:3. For example, referring to Figure 17, the
`
`derived container 1604 corresponds to the Tech/Proffield shown in Figure 7, and
`
`derived containers 1700 and 1704 correspond to the Skills field of Figure 7. Onnen
`
`

`
`Case No. 1PR2015—00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`Decl. (Ex.2003)1l‘1I 50-51. Because each derived container corresponds to a
`
`category of information that is a field from the database, the category of
`
`information tells the user what fields will be used by the derived container for
`
`querying the database. Id. For instance, because derived container 1704
`
`corresponds to the Skills field, it is clear that this field is used for querying the
`
`database. Id. In addition, because derived container 1704 is a child of derived
`
`container 1604, and because the category of information for derived container
`
`1604 is the Tech/Proffield, derived container 1704 also corresponds to the
`
`Tech/Proffield. Id. The user, therefore, is easily able to determine the category of
`
`information to which a derived container pertains, and this category of information
`
`corresponds directly to a field in the database, so the user will knowiwhich field is
`
`being used for querying the database. Id.
`
`Because the specific view of the database depends on the data selection
`
`criteria in each container definition node and the node’s position in the hierarchy,
`
`different views can be created in the same application simply by re—arranging the
`
`container definition nodes. Onnen Decl. (Ex. 2003) ‘H 52. For example, in a
`
`database containing information about jobs——~such as that of Figure 7~—-«for use by
`
`human resources personnel andjob-seekers, an information model that allows a
`
`job-seeker to explore open jobs can be created. A node representing openjobs can
`
`be created with a container definition node that searches the field “IsAvailable” for
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015—O0523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`“TRUE,” which corresponds to open jobs. The hierarchy might next have two
`
`container definition nodes, one of which has a selection criteria skiZZs=COMP and
`
`the other of which has the selection criteria skz'lZs=ELEC. The job—seeker can then
`
`connect these container definition nodes in a hierarchy that allows for searching all
`
`available jobs that require computer (COMP) skills or all available jobs that
`
`require electrical skills (ELEC). By re—arranging these same container definition
`
`nodes, the human resources personnel can explore the same database searching for
`
`all jobs—whether available or not—that require computer (COMP) skills. Id.
`
`In
`
`this manner, different types of users can quickly and easily explore the database
`
`without creating custom programs or queries for each user. Id. Because the query
`
`at a derived container is dynamically formed and executed upon selection, the user
`
`can readily change the model by changing one or more container definition nodes
`
`or re-arranging the hierarchy of container definition nodes, without having to re-
`
`write all the queries used for the database. Id.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE CITED PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`The Petition relies on four prior art references, discussed in turn below.
`
`A.
`
`Jones
`
`The Petition relies on the Jones patent (Ex. 1003) for the majority of claim
`
`limitations of each challenged claim. Petition at 19-36, passim. Jones discloses a
`
`method and apparatus for navigating through stored information using an
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`expandable, hierarchical table of contents (“TOC”) in a client-server environment.
`
`Jones (Ex. 1003) at Abstract. The server computer 150 of Jones uses a structure
`
`definition file l90 and script program 180 in order to define and dynamically
`
`generate the TOC for display on the client computer. Id. at 5:43-67, Fig. 2. Figure
`
`1E depicts one embodiment of an expandable TOC 100 for display on the client
`
`computer.
`
`F16. 1E
`
`
`
`;
`
`*9‘?
`[;;3...§;§iiI§e‘§*:€§31‘§2
`1:355
`\~;j5j3,.‘“;:*§!1s«:§»rs:
`i::§w& G...,,§,,.,.,
`
`33 Q£>3?>*§Eiflfil§3aé}:&132:$£i}§3;3.l$§$32§
`$35
`
`’
`
`
`
`,3-j“ QQ.l.§5si{i3L{£..Q%3}£fi§*2Q.§!3QéT3‘§
`
`#3»CT)
`
`
`
` ......... ..
`
`Id. at 4:8~10, Fig. 1E.
`
`An end user of the interactive TOC at a client computer can click on nodes
`
`(e.g., such as Software node 130) in order to expand or contract the TOC. For
`
`example, if the TOC is not in its expanded mode (see Figure lA), a user can click
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015~00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`on the Software node 130 in order to display the children nodes under Software
`
`(see Figure 1D). Id. at 5:11-21. When the user in Jones clicks on a node at the
`
`client computer, the client computer’s browser will send an HTTP request (a type
`
`of Internet request) to the server computer, and the server computer will respond
`
`with a new Web page specifying the display of the TOC with the node in the
`
`selected state. Id. at 4:53-63, 5:36-46; Onnen Decl. (Ex. 2003) 1111 55-56. The
`
`server in Jones determines from the request which nodes of the TOC have already
`
`been opened, and it then uses its structure definition file 190 and script program
`
`180 to dynamically generate HTML code to display the TOC in its current state in
`
`a Web page. Jones (Ex. 1003) at 5:36-67; Onnen Decl. (Ex. 2003)1l1l 55-57.
`
`Figure 1E reflects the expansion by the end user of the Software node 130
`
`through several levels of the hierarchy so that ultimately a leaf node 140 labeled
`
`“White Papers” appears. Jones (Ex. 1003) at 5:22-26. Node 140 (“White Papers”)
`
`“provides a direct hypertextual link to relevant information located elsewhere on
`
`the Web.” Id. Clicking on this hypertext link will simply cause the browser to
`
`open the document associated with the link (and potentially be directed to a
`
`position within that document). Id. at 7248-49; Onnen Decl. (Ex. 2003) 11 58;
`
`Petition at 32.
`
`Jones explains the use of Uniform Resource Locator (“URL”) hypertext
`
`links: if “the node is a leaf node and its entry in structure definition file 190
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015~00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229 v
`
`includes an explicit URL, then that
`
`is encoded as a hypertext link for that
`
`nodes’ entry in the Web page.” Jones (Ex. 1003) at 1:59-63, 8:45-48. For
`
`example, the URL "/Technology/whitepapers.htm1#VRML” associated with the
`
`“White Papers” node 140 (see Jones (Ex. 1003) at 7:48-49) will cause the browser
`
`to open the “whitepapers.htm1” document and display the “VRML” section, if such
`
`a tagged section exists in the “whitepapershtml” document. Id. at 7:48-49; Onnen
`
`Decl. (Ex. 2003) fil 58; Petition at 32. Importantly, however, the TOC of Jones
`
`does not use queries to extract information from an information repository.
`
`Instead, Jones simply teaches redirecting the end user to a document on the Web
`
`by clicking on a link in a predefined TOC. Onnen Decl. (Ex. 2003) 11 59.
`
`B.
`
`Fox
`
`The Petition relies on Fox (Ex. 1004) for the limited purpose of allegedly
`
`teaching the limitation “a category of information stored in said information
`
`repository” from the challenged independent claims. Petition at 31-35, 45-47, 55-
`
`60.
`
`Fox teaches basic features of using HTML. Fox (Ex. 1004) at passim.
`
`Petitioner cites the sections of Fox relating to its “NAME attribute.” Petitionat 32-
`
`34 (citing Fox (Ex. 1004) at 361-363). The cited sections of Fox teach simply that
`
`the NAME attribute of HTML can be used to jump to another location within the
`
`same document or to another document. Fox (Ex. 1004) at 361-363. For example,
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015—00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`clicking on the word “Judaism” in the table of contents of Figure 11-15 from Fox
`
`will route the user to the specified “appropriate section of your document” relating
`
`to that topic. Id. at 362.
`
`
`V
`_
`at
`§::)gzi:mm‘§:a Qgiitons
`
`
`.s_ .1.
`,I,§:m:s:!c:ry
`
`AN» mm
`
`as A Jiifi§tW1%£3§t:k1$t’;}?AW§£§%WWM§§ME3,
`
`«\A§
`
`§\\)),
`»<«u.<o:«.a. ‘
`x««
`.\
`"
`Figure I ‘E «*3 is A hypermble at cements
`
`Id. at Fig. 11-15. In addition, as Fox explains, the NAME attribute can be used to
`
`jump to a particular place in another document.
`
`Ia’. at 362-363. Jumping to a place
`
`in a document using a NAME attribute does not limit the display to showing only
`
`the portion associated with the NAME attribute. Instead, the display scrolls to the
`
`top of the named section, but additional portions of the web page will appear above
`
`and below the named section; these portions can be displayed by scrolling up or
`
`down. In Jones, “VRML” after the “#” in /Technology/whitepapers.html#VRML
`
`is a NAME attribute.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case No. lPR2015~00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`Importantly, however, the cited sections of Fox do not us_e_gueries to extract
`
`information from an information repository. Onnen Decl. (EX. 2003) 11 63.
`
`Instead, Fox simply teaches redirecting the end user to a specific place in the same
`
`document or a different document on the Web. Id.
`
`C.
`
`Forta
`
`The Petition relies on the Forta paper (Ex. 1005) for the feature of claims 15
`
`and 17 relating to a “selection criteria attribute.” Petition at 51-55. Forta discloses
`
`the use of the Structured Query Language (“SQL”) for database interactions. Forta
`
`(Ex. 1005) at 117. The Forta paper discloses the use of a “SELECT” statement
`
`that can be used to issue requests to select and retrieve information from a
`
`database. Id. at 118. More particularly, Forta discloses the use of its Cold Fusion
`
`technology to generate “dynamic web pages,” which are SQL statements (such as
`
`the “SELECT” statement) to pull information from a database into a web page. Id.
`
`at 163-164; Onnen Decl. (Ex. 2003) 11 65.
`
`D. Williams
`
`The Petition relies on Williams (Ex. 1006) for a specific feature from claims
`
`18~20. Petition at 45-49. In particular, the Petition cites a section of Williams
`
`stating that a server and browser may be co-located on the same computer. Id. at
`
`47 (citing Williams (Ex. 1006) at 2:62~63). HP does not challenge the specific
`
`features for which petitioner cites Williams.
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`IV. UNDER THE BOARD’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS, ALL THE
`
`CHALLENGED ’229 PATENT CLAIMS ARE NON-OBVIOUS BECAUSE
`
`CLAIM LIMITATIONS ARE NOT TAUGHT BY THE PRIOR ART
`
`To prevail on obviousness grounds, all limitations of the challenged claims
`
`must be taught or suggested by the prior art. St. Jude Med, Inc. v. Access Closure,
`
`Inc, 729 F.3d 1369, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (affirming district court’s finding of
`
`nonobviousness where the cited prior art failed to disclose patent’s claimed
`
`feature); CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int ’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003);
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., Case No. IPR2012-00026, 2012 WL
`
`10703131, at *5 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2012). The Petitioner has the burden of
`
`establishing unpatentability of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`Under the Board’s preliminary claim constructions, Petitioner has not shown
`by a preponderance ofthe evidence that the cited prior art discloses (1) the
`A
`
`“category of information stored in said information repository” limitation of
`
`independent claims 8, 17, and 18 (and hence all challenged claims), and (2) that
`
`“contents” of “derived containers” are “information extracted from said
`
`information repository” as required by dependent claims 9-10 and 19-20. For these
`
`reasons, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing unpatentability of
`
`the challenged claims.
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015—0O523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`A.
`
`The cited prior art does not disclose the “category of information
`stored in said information repository” limitation required by each
`challenged claim.
`
`Each challenged claim requires that a given derived container corresponds to
`
`“a category of information stored in said information repository.” More
`
`particularly, this feature is required by each of independent claims 8, 17, and 18 of
`
`the ’229 patent.
`
`’229 patent (Ex. 1001) at claims 8, 17, 18. The cited prior art
`
`does not teach this claim limitation.
`
`1.
`
`All challenged claims require that a given derived container
`corresponds with “a category of information stored in said
`information repository.”
`
`7 Each challenged claim requires that “a given derived container corresponds
`
`to:
`
`a category of information stored in said information repository.” ’229 patent
`
`(Ex. 1001) at claim 8; see also id. at claims 17-18. In addition, each challenged
`
`claim requires that a given derived container corresponds to “a container definition
`
`node of an information model.” Id. at claim 8; see also id. at claims 17—18.
`
`Regarding the meaning of a “category of information,” the ’229 patent teaches:
`
`In other words, a derived container can convey a
`
`category of information in the database as defined by its
`
`corresponding container definition node. A category of
`
`information corresponds to a fieldfrom the database
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR20l5-00523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`from which its selection criteria is based, and the field
`
`can be used to create a label of the derived container.
`
`Id. at 6167-723 (emphasis added). Referring to Figure 17, the derived container
`
`1604 corresponds to the Tech/Proffield shown in Figure 7, and derived containers
`
`1700 and 1704 correspond to the Skills field of Figure 7. Onnen Decl. (Ex. 2003)
`
`at 11 69. As another example, an address database may have fields of information
`
`for street address, city, state, and zip code; each of these fields is a category of
`
`information. Id.
`
`Because a derived container corresponds to a category of information in the
`
`information repository, these categories of information can be used to access
`
`information from the information repository. Onnen Decl. (Ex. 2003) at ‘H 70.
`
`That is, the category of information represents something usable in the information
`
`repository—a searchable field in that repository. Id. Because the information
`
`repository is organized by categories of information, these categories of
`
`information present to the user options about how the information repository can
`
`be accessed and organized. Id. Further, because a given derived container
`
`corresponds with a category of information in the information repository, these
`
`fields are used by queries at the derived containers to access the information
`
`repository. Id.
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015—OO523
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229
`
`Referring again to Figure 17 of the ’229 patent, the derived container 1604
`
`corresponds to the Tech/Proffield shown in Figure 7, and derived containers 1700
`and 1704 correspond to the Skills field ofFigure 7. Onnen Decl. (Ex.2003)1l 71.
`
`%
`
`Because each derived container corresponds to a category of information (i.e., a
`
`field in the database), the category of information tells the user what fields will be
`
`used by the derived container for querying the database. Id. For instance, because
`
`derived container 1704 corresponds to the Skills field, it is clear that this field is
`
`used for querying the database using the Skills field. Id. In addition, because
`
`derived container 1704 is a child of derived container 1604, and because the